There are tasks for which a GUI is a good choice, but there are also many tasks for which a command-line is vastly superior.
Which is why every serious Windows administrator does all user account management stuff from the command line. Active Directory is quite rich (perhaps too rich, there is too much to choose from) in command line tools. And scripting API:s for that matter. I have customers who have web apps do all the account management, driven by hire&fire people using wizards (it is always attractive to move the actual work out of the IT department).
Just don't overlook the "Windows Support Tools" on the server CD, though - they don't install by default...
I bought my daughters PC just after XP came out. The Hard drive is full, and it only has USB 1.1. So I bought her a new Vista machine. It was hard to get it to do what I wanted, like connect to the internet.
Finially I had a "Boot up" race. The old cluttered XP system booted faster than the new, clean Vista system. I took back the "Vista Compliant" system and she's getting a Mac for Christmas.
I have XP running on a souped-up 3.2GHZ Pentium IV machine that I've had for about 3 years. Recently, I purchased a lower-end Acer laptop with 2G memory. Admittedly, it has a dual-core cpu at 1.8GHz.... Anyway, the Vista machine boots MUCH faster than the XP machine. I'm usually surfing the web on the Visa machine before the XP machine even gets to the login screen.... FWIW. They're both slow, though.... Let's just go back to DOS. Took less than 15 seconds to boot
Just for grins I loaded DOS 6.1 on a AMD Sempron 2800 last year. You had the answer before the enter key was all the way down! Vista on my AMD 64-bit single 3800 w/2GB memory boots faster than XP on my AMD 5400 64-bit dual w/ 4GB memory. Of course, XP can only use 3.5 GB memory and doesn't care about the second core or 64-bit architecture. The XP machine is scheduled for a Vista load soon.
I dual-boot Vista & XP until SP1 came out. A month or two after that took XP off my machine. Now I am running Vista Ultimate 64bit and haven't found a program that could not run it. All my crashes (seldom) are related to one program which also crashes XP and OSX. I find XP painful to use at work. Reminds me of Windows 98.
I use this computer for gaming and coding so its a pretty hefty PC. Just bought the nVidia GTX260.
You know, between my home and office, I work with four different machines.
My office desktop runs XP SP3 (P4 3.0 GHz) - works fine, does everything I need, fairly stable.
At home, I have a PC I built myself (AMD 64 x2) that runs Vista Ultimate SP1 - works fine, does everything I need, more stable than the work PC. And, it's been running Vista since the beta release without a single problem.
My work laptop has Vista SP1, and it sucks. Why? Because it's an outdated piece of crap with a 1.6 GHz P4 processor and a hard drive powered by squirrels in a wheel.
My wife's laptop is a <$500.00 job (AMD 64 x2) from Walmart running Vista - and it runs circles around my work machine (compile time in VStudio about half that of my work box).
Sorry to all you Vista haters out there, but both XP and Vista are good OS's in my book. It's hardware that makes or breaks the experience.
I run XP with the latest SP on my work laptop (w/ 2 GB of RAM and an Intel Core 2 Duo processor). I only hibernate it when I go to and from work. I reboot it only about once every month or so. It runs great! I RARELY have anything crash on it. I usually have it loaded up with ColdFusion, IIS, SQL Server 2005 Developer, Eclipse and IE 6 all running at the same time as well. It is solid as a rock.
I have also tried out Vista (Business at work and Ultimate at home). I found that the performance of Vista is HIGHLY dependent on the hardware it is running on. I have no problems or complaints with the new interface but don't see any added value in it. XP works just fine for me and will acceptably with less hardware and so far there is no software that I need that runs on Vista and NOT on XP so I find no reason to upgrade.
Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau.
Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
John Andrew Holmes "It is well to remember that the entire universe, with one trifling exception, is composed of others."
Hee well I guess the quantifier of 'lost connection for 4 days' may have indicated it wasn't a permanent problem, but then again maybe not...
After trying every possible option I system restored the PC back to when I bought it, then it worked. Was most strange as I had only installed MS software up to that point, oh wait maybe its not that strange
I own a number of PCs and I work for an organization that has about 500 PCs in use. Not one of my computers, and only a half dozen of my employers is able to use Vista. It is just too big, too bloated and too slow to be of use to me or to my employer. Although the cost of hardware has dropped significantly, replacing all those systems with ones capable of reasonable Vista performance is way outside of the budget. Sometimes, I half believe that Microsoft is in collusion with the hardware manufactures and system builders to raise money by forcing hardware replacement just to be able to run a more secure operating system.
Personally, some of the hardware I am running cannot run any version of Windows newer that Windows 98. They work, they do their job (off of the Internet, of course). Upgrading is just a waste of money.
So don't upgrade.
Microsoft designed Vista with new technologies in mind so that they could improve performance. Naturally this actually requires the new technologies to work properly. If your machines are that old, then don't expect Ms to keep supporting them. If Ms held back on the resource consumption, they would lose to their competitors due to the lack of new features. Let's face it, aero, indexing, and readyboost are all designed to provide a better experience by consuming more resources. I agree that some programs are bloated (e.g. IE7 - especially in comparison to Chrome), but overall Vista is better than XP on the computers it was designed for. The only major mistake Ms made with Vista was reducing the minimum requirements - 800 MHz and 512 MB RAM are laughable. I wouldn't consider running Vista with anything less than 1 GB, and would recommend 2 GB, since performance with Vista really seems to scale with RAM. 800 MHz is a joke as well - once again, doubling the recommended 1 GHz provides a decent performance (especially with a dual core). And for the record, don't bother considering an OS without all of the latest SPs - its just incomplete without them. Vista is pretty good on a decent system with SP1.
Firm bought me HP Compaq 8710p, with Vista Ultimate.
I spent 3 days installing VS 2005, SQL Server 2005 & other dominantly MS
System crashed twice during instalations, returning me to the start (recovery).
I have installed XP SP2, and I am happy
I DO have job to do other than installing, reinstalling anf fixing OS,
there are enough problems with our own code , I don't want
to spend time google-ing about fixes, bugs etc...
Last Visit: 31-Dec-99 18:00 Last Update: 26-May-22 19:41